The act of the accused fell within the first exception to S.300 IPC due to provocation, warranting a conviction under S.304(i) IPC instead.

1. The appellant is the sole accused in SC No. 47 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal. He stood charged for offences under S.302 and S.506(ii) IPC. By judgment dated 19.12.2012, the trial Court convicted him under both charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offence under S.302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under S.506(ii) IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused / appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
[a] The deceased in this case was one Kavitha. The accused and the deceased had fallen in love and married 11 years before the occurrence. Out of the said wedlock, they got two children aged 9 and 4 years respectively. The accused was working in a private cotton mill known as Jaihind Spinning Mill at Puduchathiram Village. The deceased was going for coolie work. They were living at Devender Colony, Navanee. PW 1 is the mother of the deceased. She was living along with her husband and others in the opposite house. The accused had, in due course, developed suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased. When the accused questioned the same, there arose frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased. On many occasions, PW 1 and her husband had come to the house of the deceased and mediated between them.
[b] 13.04.2011, was election day. The accused, therefore, did not go for work and he remained at his house. The deceased had gone out to cast her vote and then she returned home by about 4.15 p.m. The accused asked her as to why she was behaving in such a manner to bring disrepute to him, by her adulterous life. The deceased retarded calling the accused as impotent. She further scolded him that he was not capable of leading a marital life. She also ridiculed him using abusive language. Provoked by these words of the deceased, the accused took out an koduval which was kept in the house for cutting wood and cut the deceased on her neck. The occurrence was witnessed by PW 4, who is the sister of the deceased, who stayed along with the deceased. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.
[c] PW 4 raised hue and cry. PW 1 rushed to the house of the deceased. PW 6 also came to the house of the deceased. When they entered into the house, they found the deceased lying with cut injuries on her neck and hands. The deceased was dead. Then, PW 1 went to the police station and made a complaint at 5.00 p.m. on 13.04.2011. PW 11, the then Special Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint under Ext.P1, registered a case in Cr. No. 212 of 2011 under S.302 IPC. Ext. P19 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded Exts. P1 and P19 to the Court, which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 7.00 a.m. on 14.04.2011.
[d] PW 13 took up the case for investigation. She proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of PW 5 and another witness. She recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. Then, she conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ext. P23, the Inquest Report. She made arrangements to take photographs of the dead body and the place of occurrence. Then, she forwarded the body for post - mortem. PW 2 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 14.04.2011 at 11.00 a.m. He found the following injuries:
"1. An incised wound 7 x 1 x 1.5 cm on right temporal region at